Making Assumptions in Iowa

Everyone seems to be assuming things about the Iowa caucus, and no one seems to know exactly who's going to show up tomorrow night.

Maureen Dowd, in today's New York Times, seems to assume it will all come down to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama on the Democratic side -- just barely acknowledging that there is a third candidate, John Edwards, who could finish first in the Hawkeye State.

"Should Hillary have skipped Iowa?" frets Roger Simon in The Politico, pondering an internal campaign memo in which it was recommended (unsuccessfully) that Clinton pull her resources from Iowa and devote them to other states.

Simon seems to feel Obama stands to be the beneficiary of the anti-Hillary, anti-Iraq activists who are likely to participate in the Democratic caucus. Iowa, he says, has always been one of Clinton's weakest states.

In the National Journal, Ronald Brownstein examines the campaigns being waged by the "big three" in Iowa.

Funny, isn't it? When Hillary Clinton's husband first sought the presidency in 1992, President Bush was considered invincible and the Democratic field was regarded as minute by comparison. The popular phrase for the 1992 Democrats was "the dwarves," and 16 years later, the top contenders are regarded as "the big three."

Robert Novak writes that Obama will win the Iowa Democratic caucus -- and Mitt Romney will win on the Republican side.

Novak has really gone out on a limb in both parties. He picks Clinton to finish third among the Democrats, and he picks Fred Thompson to finish third among the Republicans.

John Heilemann, in New York magazine, says Clinton has "lost her footing" in Iowa. Going negative is "considered dumb politics in Iowa, where the aversion to campaign bile is acute," he writes, going on to suggest that Clinton's campaign orchestrated things "to help Edwards win and deny Obama victory at all costs, including a third-place finish for herself."

A few months ago, things looked settled on the Democratic side. Now, it doesn't seem so sure, does it?

The Republicans needn't act smug. In the Washington Post, Dan Balz writes that Iowa is the "big test" for Mike Huckabee, whose poll numbers rose in meteoric fashion and then began to slide right after Christmas. And Huckabee has struggled on foreign policy since last week's assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

In fact, according to the Washington Post, illegal immigration is the "hallmark" of the campaign. In a state like Iowa, where more than 90% of the population is white, it remains to be seen if immigration is a big issue. But terrorism -- and its alleged role in Bhutto's murder -- should be on the minds of voters tomorrow night.

If the Republicans are looking for things to take credit for, Bloomberg.com has a list of good economic news items from 2007 that nobody seems to be talking about. That's certainly something to ponder on the day that oil hit $100/barrel for the first time.

Although oil prices dipped back below $100/barrel, CNN reports that we should prepare ourselves for record gas prices and higher airfares. By the time the market begins to anticipate the summer driving season, $4/gallon gasoline could be a reality.

That's going to make a candidate's position on ethanol important not only in Iowa but in other parts of the country as well.

Fuel will be important in Iowa tomorrow for other reasons. It's going to be cold in Iowa, as it usually is on the third day of January. In Des Moines, for example, the forecast says it will be 26 and breezy during the day. But the caucuses are at night, and the forecast low for tomorrow night is 19 degrees with a wind chill around 10.

The hardiest activists will get out and participate. We'll see who else is motivated enough to brave the cold and the wind to participate in the caucuses.